Apologetics 101: Why Does the Bible Say Jesus Had Brothers?

Aleteia ^ | April 7, 2015 | JOHN MARTIGNONI

[NYer]

Q:  What is this about the “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible?  Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?
 
A:  No.The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet, as you mention, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus.  Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon...”

The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and named, in the Bible. So, Mary must have had other children and the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.

First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56.  Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar...among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses...”  It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus. 

Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified as an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible-only believer — in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith — then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James; after all, how many brothers named “James” would Jesus have? 

But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus — neither one of them had a father named Joseph! Which means, neither one of them was Jesus’ sibling. Neither one of them had the same mother as Jesus. So, the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19 as a “brother” of Jesus, is a brother in a broader sense of the word, he was not a brother in the sense of having the same parents.

Now, Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), often identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as someone who was not one of the twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.

So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible.

[Star Traveler]

I would say that Jesus being the cornerstone kinda says “he” is the foundation for “the assembly of the saved ones”.

Without the divine sacrifice of the Son of God, who is the Messiah of Israel, there is no salvation ... and then, as a result ... no assembly of the saved ones.

The “rock” is that Jesus “is the Messiah” ... otherwise no one is saved.

[af_vet_1981]

Ephesians is very clear. Perhaps you will argue that Peter was not an apostle or the Gentiles are not included in the church that Messiah is building.

[Star Traveler]

I don’t know what Peter being an Apostle ... or ... Gentiles being saved has to do with — Jesus building the “assembly of the saved ones,” based on the fact that “he is the Messiah of Israel” (namely, the one promised by God to bring salvation to all).

I’m not a Jew, by the way ... :-) ... but a Gentile who is in the assembly of the saved ones, by virtue of the fact that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, and I have accepted the Salvation provided by him in that regard, per the Scriptures.

[NYer]

I didn't realize that was part of the Old Testament canon. I'm waiting for a chapter and verse on this requirement.

Let's begin with you pointing me to the chapter and verse that supports sola scriptura.

[CynicalBear]

>>Let's begin with you pointing me to the chapter and verse that supports sola scriptura.<<

You still haven't shown any infallible source that shows what the apostles taught other than scripture.

[af_vet_1981]

I don’t know what Peter being an Apostle ... or ... Gentiles being saved has to do with — Jesus building the “assembly of the saved ones,” based on the fact that “he is the Messiah of Israel” (namely, the one promised by God to bring salvation to all).

Are you unfamiliar with that passage in Ephesians, so that you did not recognize the church in it ?

I’m not a Jew, by the way ... :-) ... but a Gentile who is in the assembly of the saved ones, by virtue of the fact that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, and I have accepted the Salvation provided by him in that regard, per the Scriptures.

So you write, yet Paul writes that those Gentiles who really are in Messiah, are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Messiah being the chief cornerstone. According to Paul, the foundation is comprised of the apostles and prophets, Messiah being the chief cornerstone. Do you understand what the foundation of a building is, and what a chief cornerstone is ? Do you think the Messiah gave Peter the wrong key to the wrong house ?

[Star Traveler]

When you talk about the “church” (and in light of the three ways I pointed out how people commonly use the word) ... I would say that if you’re referring to what the Bible calls “ecclesia” ... the assembly of the saved ones ... then, yes, I am talking about that. I’m not talking about the other two that the Bible is not talking about either ... the building or the organization.

AND THEN ... in regards to building upon what Jesus has provided, namely that he is the Messiah of Israel ... only Jesus Himself can provide that fundamental beginning ... and no other.

Others can add to the “assembly of the saved” (the “ecclesia”) by spreading the Gospel to all, but without the Salvation by the Messiah of Israel ... there is nothing. It’s either you have that ... or ... you have nothing (no matter who else does what).

To put it in short form ... Jesus say he builds his ECCLESIA (the assembly of the saved ones) from the FACT that he IS THE MESSIAH (the one who was promised by God to come for the salvation of the world).

[af_vet_1981]

AND THEN ... in regards to building upon what Jesus has provided, namely that he is the Messiah of Israel ... only Jesus Himself can provide that fundamental beginning ... and no other.

And Messiah, the chief cornerstone of the church, did something very significant in changing Peter's name in Aramaic to Cephas (Rock), just as the LORD did something very significant when He gave new names to Abram and Jacob, and built nations upon them. Messiah gave the keys to Peter.

Here are some Catholic answers to Protestant objections to the Apostle Peter being Cephas.

10 Answers on St. Peter the Rock

A Response to the "Top 10 Reasons why Peter Isn't the Rock"
MARIO DERKSEN

[Star Traveler]

Post #135 already went into that ... let’s just quote those verses here ...

— — —

Matthew 16

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.

22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”

23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

— — —

The following comment on this verse from The Bible Knowledge Commentary sums up the issue:

16:17-20. Peter’s words brought a word of commendation from the Lord. Peter was blessed because he had come to a correct conclusion about the person of Christ and because great blessing would be brought into his life. The Lord added, however, this was not a conclusion Peter had determined by his own or others’ ability. God, the Father in heaven, had revealed it to him. Peter was living up to his name (it means “rock”) for he was demonstrating himself to be a rock. When the Lord and Peter first met, Jesus had said Simon would be named Cephas (Aram. for “rock”) or Peter (Gr. for “rock”; John 1:41-42).

But his declaration about Messiah’s person led to a declaration of Messiah’s program. Peter (Petros, masc.) was strong like a rock, but Jesus added that on this rock (petra, fem.) He would build His church. Because of this change in Greek words, many conservative scholars believe that Jesus is now building His church on Himself. Others hold that the church is built on Peter and the other apostles as the building’s foundation stones (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). Still other scholars say that the church is built on Peter’s testimony. It seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of building the church on Himself (1 Cor. 3:11).

https://bible.org/question/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-“upon-rock-i-will-build-my-church”;;

— — — — —

NOW ... if you don’t want to accept that, then it’s on you, and not me. You can take it from there.

In any case, for me, I’m in the ECCLESIA (the assembly of the saved ones) on the basis of the fact that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and that I have accepted him as my personal savior, according to the Gospel and per the Scriptures.

[af_vet_1981]

In any case, for me, I’m in the ECCLESIA (the assembly of the saved ones) on the basis of the fact that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and that I have accepted him as my personal savior, according to the Gospel and per the Scriptures.

There is no "personal savior" in the scriptures; the scriptural reference is to call God "my Savior" or "Savior of the world." The name change for Cephas was significant, because as with Abram and wit Jacob, the LORD built upon Cephas, just as Jesus said that he would, for those who have ears to hear and are not blinded.

[Star Traveler]

We’re born one-by-one and we are saved one-by-one. Each one who is saved is a special creation of God. That’s unique and personal.

[af_vet_1981]

We’re born one-by-one and we are saved one-by-one. Each one who is saved is a special creation of God. That’s unique and personal.

How odd the word "personal" does not occur in the scriptures. It is terminology that reflects a modern culture.

[Star Traveler]

Personal is “me” ... and not “me and ten other people” ... :-) ...

Salvation is EXCLUSIVELY PERSONAL. It’s not you and your spouse, not you and your parents, not you and your kids, not you and your friends, but it’s YOU ALONE with Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, your personal Savior. That’s it ...

[Triple]

They go beyond because the thought of decendants would challenge their monopoly on the key to the kingdom of heaven.

[CommerceComet]

Let's begin with you pointing me to the chapter and verse that supports sola scriptura.

How about one issue at a time? First things first, you made an assertion (which others have also made) and I called for some support.

I have challenged other Catholics for proof on that assertion and have been met with a telling silence. I was going to compliment you on at least trying to prove support (despite its obvious weakness) until this obvious non-response response was forthcoming.

As Elsie would say to this type of response: Quick, look over there!

[af_vet_1981]

This informs me that Jesus, in bequeathing his mother to John, signaled he had no paternal or maternal siblings.

Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the Lord commanded Moses.
Numbers, Catholic chapter twenty seven, Protestant verses one to eleven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
and abandoned by those who will not heed the holy catholic apostolic church, nor the Jews.

The Basic Rules

The Torah devotes six verses to the laws of inheritance (Bamidbar 27:5-11), setting forth the procedure for disposition of estates:

When male offspring exist, they are invariably the exclusive heirs of their father's estate.

The Torah awards women no rights of inheritance as long as there are male heirs in the same class. (Daughters do not inherit if there are sons, nor sisters if there are brothers. Also, only paternal relatives can be considered heirs.) 1

In the absence of sons, daughters (and their offspring) are exclusive heirs. Children who die before their father are replaced by their qualified heirs. When a decedent leaves no children, his father is the exclusive heir to his estate.

If his father is no longer living, his children (the decedent's paternal brothers) inherit his estate.

When the first born is a male, he is entitled to two shares of the tangible assets of the estate, by rule of bechora (progenitor). Originally a widow was only entitled to her kesuba of 200 silver pieces. By rabbinical ordinance dating to pre-Talmudic times, her needs and living facilities must be provided for from her husband's estate until the time that she claims the lump sum due under the kesuba, or until she remarries. The Rabbis also made provision for support and maintenance of unmarried daughters (up to physical maturity at the age of 12½), and for a dowry at their time of marriage - which may run as high as ten percent of the total assets left by the decedent.2 But this does not leave options for changes of the type Mr. Zoberstein or Dave Samsonoff had wanted to offer in their wills.

The Torah concludes this discussion with the term chukas mishpat (a statute of judgment). From the use of the word chuka, which implies inalienability, the Rambam derives a maxim that a person cannot change the order of inheritance described in the Torah - neither to bequeath a legacy to a person not entitled to inherit, nor to disinherit a person entitled to inherit. In this respect, inheritance differs from the general rule in monetary matters, which allows people to stipulate any conditions or rules of conduct of business they choose (kol tenai shebemamon kayom) 3. The only modification permitted by the halacha is to provide a greater share, or even one's complete estate, to any of the persons entitled to inherit, even though this would disinherit others in the same class, providing that a first-born (bechor) is not deprived of his right to a double share.4

The Sages were generally not in favor of any disinheritance or diminution of inheritance among one's children, even in favor of one child who is a Torah scholar over another who does not conduct himself properly, and they counseled against participation in any such disposition of assets.5

[af_vet_1981]

Personal is “me” ... and not “me and ten other people” ... :-) ...

Salvation is EXCLUSIVELY PERSONAL. It’s not you and your spouse, not you and your parents, not you and your kids, not you and your friends, but it’s YOU ALONE with Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, your personal Savior. That’s it ...

There are no instances of "personal" in the scriptures but your comments are reflective of theology in the modern world, it being wholly personal in nature.

[redleghunter]

>>This informs me that Jesus, in bequeathing his mother to John, signaled he had no paternal or maternal siblings.<<

Conjecture. From all four Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, the only male close to Christ in attendance is John. This informs me Jesus trusted John and signaled He had little faith in His half brothers to see to Mary’s needs.

This is what a body of believers will do. Mary was in the family of God and John the closest of His disciples.

[redleghunter]

>> There are no instances of “personal” in the scriptures but your comments are reflective of theology in the modern world, it being wholly personal in nature.<<

Among the terminology used in Scripture to describe the spiritual dynamic of Salvation are: “pick up your cross and follow Jesus”, “be born again”, be “seed in good soil”, “justified by faith”, “saved by grace”, at “peace with god”, “in Christ”, have your “name written in heaven”, be one of the “chosen elect”, have “Christ in you.”

Many of the above can be described as personal in both word and especially in deed. But no, the exact term is not in scriptures. However the personal lives recorded demonstrate such. For example, being chosen by The Son of God as a disciple is quite a personal experience.

Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb and then being the first to encounter the Risen Christ was quite personal. Thomas declaring “My Lord and My God” again quite a personal experience. Pentecost. Personal. Being baptized...personal.

I agree the term itself is not specifically found in scriptures and as you noted the use of “my” God is personal in nature.

For we know:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”(Romans 10)

[Iscool]

First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56. Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar...among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses...” It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus.

This is the deception which is so prevalent in the Catholic religion...

Mat 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
Mat 27:56 Among which was (1) Mary Magdalene, and (2) Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the (3) mother of Zebedee's children.

There are 3 women here...Two of them are named Mary...The 3rd is not named except to say her husband was Zebedee...And of course we have Jesus' sisters to contend with which no Catholic will touch...